ILNews

COA rules on landowner first-impression issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals needed to decide whether an urban or residential landowner owes a duty to protect neighbors from damage caused by a tree falling from the landowner's property.

In J. John Marshall and Marjorie Marshall v. Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Cindy Cain, No. 20A03-0908-CV-366, Cindy Cain's home is next to a vacant lot owned by Marjorie Marshall, which John helped to manage. Elkhart code enforcement told them that a tree on the lot needed to come down, so John had a professional arborist inspect the tree. The arborist just visually inspected the tree and determined it didn't need to be taken down. The tree later fell onto Cain's house. Her insurer, Erie, reimbursed her for the repairs and brought a suit against the Marshalls for damages for negligent maintenance of the tree. Marjorie died before the bench trial concluded.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Erie; John filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

John argued there was insufficient service of process upon Marjorie. Even though someone else signed the return receipt indicating the notice was received, the service by mail was effective, ruled the appellate court.

John also claimed the trial court erred in finding they owed a duty of care to Cain. Judge Margret Robb wrote it would appear the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 363 forecloses the issue of whether the Marshalls owed any duty to protect Cain from the fallen tree. But that would leave urban or residential landowners essentially powerless in the face of a neighbor who refused to remove or secure a dangerous tree just because it was a natural condition of the land. Like several other states, the appellate court adopted a reasoning that departed from the strict application of the rule in context of urban or residential property.

Living in close quarters substantially increases the risk that a falling tree will cause damage or injure someone, and similar to the problem relating to a highway - as mentioned in the Restatement rule - the reduced size of property lots in an urban or residential setting make the burden of time and money to inspect and secure trees relatively minor especially as compared to the potential damage that could result from the tree's fall, she wrote.

The appellate judges held that an urban or residential landowner has the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners arising from the conditions of trees on his or her property.

The trial court properly applied a duty of reasonable care to the Marshalls, and properly found that sufficient evidence supported the Marshalls breached that duty and that John was jointly and severally liable since he acted as Marjorie's agent in care of the lot.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT